Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Freedom includes the freedom to make bad decisions in personal matters.
Sure, but still, they are humans and need to be helped if they can't help themselves. There is no point in ignoring the fact that a lot of modern food is not good for us. So, what's the problem with removing excess salt from packaged food? We have removed other substances that are known to be a problem to health, like certain preserving agents or colorants.
The FourLoko ban was more class based than health based.
If FourLoko was expensive and was predominately consumed by the wealthy, then it would not have been banned. Just like absinthe has not been rebanned (it was unbanned in the US under Bush, a Bush policy that I approved of) because it is expensive and marketed to an upscale demographic. If absinthe was marketed to the poor and the young (especially the nonwhite poor and young) it would be rebanned.
As for attempts to ban e-cigarettes and the ban on nicotine water while at the same time encouraging further restrictions on smoking - it's all about the money. If there actually was something that eliminated smoking it would be banned before it ever reached the market. The government WANTS cigarette taxes and money from fines related to smoking.
Gerald Ford was in fact a leftist Republican. Although the FDA may have banned that dye at the time no matter who the President was.
Ford was definitely not a leftist Republican. He was well to the right of Nixon. Unless supporting abortion rights makes someone a "leftist" this makes no sense (it was not a left/right issue yet when Ford was president)
Sure, but still, they are humans and need to be helped if they can't help themselves. There is no point in ignoring the fact that a lot of modern food is not good for us. So, what's the problem with removing excess salt from packaged food? We have removed other substances that are known to be a problem to health, like certain preserving agents or colorants.
Eating extra salt doesn't fall into the category of being helpless. Of course there is a lot of modern food that isn't good for us and people choose to eat it because they like it - ice cream, candy, chips with salt etc. The problem is that the government is making the decision for people about what they "choose to do with their bodies."
Regarding the preserving agents etc., I'm sure there are people that would say that shouldn't be regulated. I'm not as far down the line on the continuum as that. To me, those are chemicals that are not food items with unknown and/or dangerous effects. I think that when it gets to the point of salt, that it's going too far.
Gerald Ford was in fact a leftist Republican. Although the FDA may have banned that dye at the time no matter who the President was.
Only by using the "he who isn't as Right or more than I is a leftist" rule that conservatives are using today, as they pull their tent smaller and smaller.
Anyway, as to the FDA doing it regardless of the president, is the OP contending that President Obama personally banned Four Loko and internet gambling (among other things)? If we can blame Obama for the amount of salt in our food, we can certainly blame Ford for the lack of red M&Ms (back before they were reintroduced with a different dye).
When you all complain about Reagan upping the drinking age to 21 and forcing big government nanny statism upon all the states, then I'll take you seriously.
When you all complain about Reagan upping the drinking age to 21 and forcing big government nanny statism upon all the states, then I'll take you seriously.
Reagan indeed did those things, and also increased penalties for drug users. Also, encouraging the banning of abortion is a "nanny state" issue.
When you all complain about Reagan upping the drinking age to 21 and forcing big government nanny statism upon all the states, then I'll take you seriously.
Complaint lodged...
In comparison to the trends I've seen at various government levels, that seems like a fond memory though.
I think it is hateful when you say people with those problems will get eliminated from the gene pool.
Isn't that the evolutionary process?
Evolution is harsh, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuling
As if their lives were any less precious as those of people without such problems.... Not to mention that it has little to do with genes, if anything.
Does evolution see human life as more precious than any other life form...or is that simply human arrogance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
